Tuesday, October 30, 1990 - 1:30 p.m.
Speaker: I will now call the House to order. At this time, we will proceed with Prayers.
Speaker: We will proceed with the Order Paper.
Introduction of Visitors.
Are there any Returns or Documents for tabling?
TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS
Hon. Mr. McDonald: I have for tabling an estimated funding by community by project summary contained in the capital mains.
Speaker: Are there any Reports of Committees?
Are there any Petitions?
Introduction of Bills.
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
Bill No. 14: Introduction and First Reading
Hon. Mr. McDonald: I move that Bill No. 14, entitled Fourth Appropriation Act, 1989-90, be now introduced and read a first time.
Speaker: It has been moved by the Hon. Minister of Finance that Bill No. 14, entitled Fourth Appropriation Act, 1989-90, be now introduced and read a first time.
Motion for introduction and first reading of Bill No. 14 agreed to
Bill No. 15: Introduction and First Reading
Hon. Mr. McDonald: I move that Bill No. 15, entitled Second Appropriation Act, 1990-91, be now introduced and read a first time.
Speaker: It has been moved by the Hon. Minister of Finance that Bill No. 15, entitled Second Appropriation Act, 1990-91, be now introduced and read a first time.
Motion for introduction and first reading of Bill No. 15 agreed to
Bill No. 16: Introduction and First Reading
Hon. Mr. McDonald: I move that Bill No. 16, entitled First Appropriation Act, 1991-92, be now introduced and read a first time.
Speaker: It has been moved by the Hon. Minister of Finance that Bill No. 16, entitled First Appropriation Act, 1991-92, be now introduced and read a first time.
Motion for introduction and first reading of Bill No. 16 agreed to
Speaker: Notices of Motion for the Production of Papers.
Are there any Notices of Motion?
Are there any Statements by Ministers?
This then brings us to Question Period.
Question re: Decentralization
Mr. Phelps: I have a question for whoever is filling in for the Minister responsible for the Executive Council with regard to the hastily contrived decentralization policy that was unveiled last week. Yesterday, I expressed concern about the lack of realistic costing. I would like to follow up on this, as well as the consultation process as it is applied to the communities. This is a government that prides itself on consultation, and I would like to know if the village of Mayo was consulted during the development of the policy with regard to the policy itself and the positions that are being moved to Mayo under stage 1.
Hon. Mr. McDonald: The policy itself, as the Member was made aware of yesterday, was developed with considerable thought. It was developed after having established the advisory committee to review decentralization options. The advisory committee reported, as Members know, and now the government has come forward with a final policy taking into account many of the points that were raised in the consultation process and have now made it public.
To my knowledge, there was no consultation respecting an individual position going to Mayo with the village council of Mayo. I can tell the Member, from personal experience, that the Village of Mayo will certainly be supportive of the initiatives taken to date, I would assume. I also feel, too, that the details respecting the decentralization that are the purview of the Village of Mayo will be discussed with the Village of Mayo prior to decentralization taking place.
Mr. Phelps: For heavens sake, here we have a policy designed to assist the communities with their economic problems and need for stability. Why on earth was the Village of Mayo not consulted on the positions they would like to see moved there?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: The consultation we are referring to regarded the policy parameters respecting decentralization. We generally do not seek concurrence from a village council as to whether or not the government is going to provide a particular program or service delivery in a particular way. Those matters that are of the purview of Mayo in terms of the servicing of lots or municipal infrastructure requirements will certainly be discussed with Mayo prior to any decentralization taking place.
Mr. Phelps: I have listened to the radio and heard the Mayor from Mayo on the radio expressing concern that the village was not consulted. Yet this is supposed to be a program entered into to assist the communities. I still do not understand why there was not some discussion with the Village of Mayo with regard to the positions that were being moved there.
Hon. Mr. McDonald: The first order of consultation would be with the individual employees currently in the positions. It is not the purview of the Village of Mayo, or any other village council, to decide whether or not the Government of Yukon is going to deliver services in a particular way. The Village of Mayo and every other town council in this territory has the responsibility for municipal services. Where decentralization affects the municipal interests for which they are responsible, then any move will take place only if consultation is done on those matters.
Question re: Decentralization
Mr. Phelps: I find it hard to believe my ears. Here we have a government who used to talk about consultation acting in such a dictatorial fashion. Surely, if one is looking at moving positions to a community to lend stability to it and to improve services, one would expect the local government to be consulted.
Is the Minister telling me that none of the rural communities were consulted with regard to which positions would be moved? How about Dawson City? Was it consulted?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: No. The individual positions are decisions for the Government of Yukon to make, in terms of deciding which services are best delivered in a particular manner. The policy parameters themselves were discussed very extensively with the Association of Yukon Communities and its advice provided through its representations in the Smith Report was necessary in order to understand the issues that would be of interest to municipalities. But if the Member is suggesting for one moment that the Government of Yukon must seek consent for the provision of any service in a municipality that is outside the parameters of municipal jurisdiction, the Member is mistaken as to the relative roles and responsibilities of this Legislature and the municipal councils.
Mr. Phelps: In his rather stuttering reply, one gets the impression that this is a government that is suddenly against consultation. I did not say that they had to have consent about the exact positions being moved. I am just astonished that the local governments were not consulted at all with regard to what kinds of moves would make sense to improve services and what they would like to see. Is he saying the same is true for Watson Lake and the other communities? Were none of them consulted ahead of time as to their preferences for the kinds of services they would like to see decentralized to their communities?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: There was a thorough consultation through the AYCs representative on the policy parameters respecting decentralization. When the Government of Yukon decides to improve education or add a teacher in a particular community, for example, we do not seek consent of the municipal council as to whether or not that should be done.
The proposition being put forward by the Member is patently ridiculous. There was thorough consultation on the policy parameters. The Government of Yukon has indicated those matters that are within its jurisdiction shall be decided by the Yukon government, with the concurrence of this Legislature. Finally, those issues that are of importance and are in the purview of municipal councils will be discussed with those councils prior to implementation. Those municipal councils have a direct interest in the matter in that respect, but they are not regional governments and they have not usurped the Yukon Legislature. We have been maintaining that course, but we have thoroughly discussed with them the policy parameters of this policy. That is extensive consultation, in and of itself.
Mr. Phelps: I do not understand this. Who did the Minister or the government consult with in Carcross in regard to the four positions being moved there? What did that consultation entail?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: The Member is clearly not listening. With respect to the policy parameters for the decentralization policy, the decision was made to thoroughly consult with communities through their representatives on Jim Smiths task force.
With respect to the individual decisions on service delivery, they were made internally in government, because the government is ultimately responsible for service delivery in a full range of areas in this territory. With respect to any matters that might affect a municipality or community, the decision was made early on that those matters which were in the purview of the municipality, given their jurisdiction, would be discussed with them prior to implementation. There was no promise made, neither early on during policy development nor during the consultation process, that a decision made to transfer one particular employee from one community to the other would be determined by municipal government, or that municipal government would have the final say with respect to whether or not a particular position was transferred from one community to another.
That has not been the practice of this government in the past. We have moved positions to municipalities, and we have not sought unanimous consent from those municipalities for that service delivery change to take place.
Question re: Decentralization
Mr. Phelps: It is taking them an awfully long time to tell us they did not consult with the municipalities. They did not consult with anybody in Carcross, nor they did not consult with the Village of Mayo, and we have heard from these people, either by phone or through the media, with regard to their discontent.
Let us go through the facts. The AYC demanded a copy of the Smith report, which was promised to them but not delivered until after the announcement was made about the positions being transferred. How can the hon. Minister stand in his place and suggest to us that the individual local communities - the Village of Mayo, the Dawson City, the Town of Watson Lake - were thoroughly consulted with regard to the positions that were announced in this Legislature last Thursday?
Hon. Mr. Byblow: In order to correct the record with respect to the Smith report, as promised, that report was provided to the Association of Yukon Communities. The Member repeatedly raises the issue of consultation. For the record, I think it should be noted that a fairly thorough consultation respecting decentralization has been taking place for some considerable time - not just with the communities affected, but also with employees involved. In the Yukon 2000 process, the Member will recall that decentralization became a major principle enshrined in that process, and it was supported by the communities as an initiative that ought to go on. The Smith report capitalized on a number of other options respecting decentralization that was a process of consultation with communities.
With respect to even further consultation that is going to take place, there is no doubt that, in respect of matters such as space, housing, and impacts on infrastructure, there will be continued consultation with those communities to alleviate any concerns, problems, or burdens that may be imposed with decentralization. Let us remember the fundamental principle here ...
Speaker: Order please. Will the Member please conclude his answer.
Hon. Mr. Byblow: This government supports decentralization and is doing something about it, unlike Members opposite who seem to be suggesting they are opposed to it.
Mr. Phelps: We are not opposed to the policy. The concept of decentralization is a fine and noble concept. What we object to is the hasty and stupid way in which it is being introduced and implemented by this government.
Perhaps the side opposite could tell us who was consulted in Carcross with regard to the move there?
Hon. Mr. Penikett: First of all I apologize for my lateness to Question Period, but the federal Minister, Mr. Siddon, called me just before Question Period, and I felt it appropriate to complete the conversation we had on the important matter he called about.
It should be very clear that as we implement the decentralization policy we will be talking to municipal governments, local authorities and First Nations in those cases, about how we will be implementing it. We certainly will be talking to them about land, housing and office space needs. It has never been the practice of this, nor any other government, to consult with individual citizens about the organizational structure, the operational needs of its departments or the exact nature of services, and to suggest, as the Member is, that somehow communities might have a veto over which officers of this government might be located in their community, or might be able to decide for themselves, or make a decisive intervention on that course is a radical suggestion, which I think is quite unprecedented.
We will, and have consulted with a number of groups about policy, and we will be consulting with individual communities as we implement it in their communities, but it was never contemplated by this nor any other government that we would negotiate with communities about what employees of this government would be located in those communities.
Mr. Phelps: What does the side opposite take us for? Here we had the much-heralded Yukon 2000 process, which is the name for every consultative process it goes through. There are a virtual army of government officials developing policies and going to the communities, sometimes playing to a capacity audience of one or two. There has been literally millions of dollars spent going out to the communities...
Speaker: Order please. Will the Member please get to the supplementary question.
Mr. Phelps: Why the sudden reversal with regard to this important policy?
Hon. Mr. Penikett: There has been no reversal. In fact, the recent impetus for the decentralization policy came exactly out of the Yukon 2000 process the Member talked about.
The communities said, throughout that process, that they thought that, in the interest of the economies of rural Yukon, there should be a fair distribution of government jobs around the territory. All areas of the population, whether they are men, women or aboriginal, rural or urban, should have representation in the public service. We agree with that proposition.
This decentralization policy is part of the process of making that happen. Nowhere throughout the Yukon 2000 process, in all the hundreds of meetings that members and officials of this government attended, did anyone suggest that they, as an individual mayor or councillor or citizen in a community, should have a say or be consulted about the ongoing administrative branches of the government. What we were consulting about was policy, strategies and programs. We will continue to do that. Never has it been suggested that we should have to negotiate with communities about the administrative arrangements this government makes to deliver its programs, any more than the municipalities negotiate with us about the way they administer their programs. That is not the way we operate.
Question re: Decentralization
Mr. Phelps: Is the Minister seriously saying to this Assembly that they operated with regard to this policy in the same manner as they have with previous policies? If so, I would like to know exactly when they had their public meetings in Carcross with regard to what Carcross would like to see in terms of decentralization and what positions make sense to them. I would like to know when they had a similar meeting in Mayo and when they held a similar meeting in Dawson with regard to this specific policy, because I am not aware of such consultation taking place.
Hon. Mr. Penikett: I am afraid the Member is being a bit absurd. We are not talking about a yard sale of government jobs. We are not talking about communities coming along and saying, Well I would like 100 highway workers, and some other community saying, Well I would like all of the libraries branch, and someone else saying, We would like parks because we think it would really suit here. We are not in a bazaar, where we are selling off the governments assets and the governments programs. The governments programs have to be implemented according to the needs of the communities. We have to provide services to the communities where the people live. It would be, I would suggest, a totally chaotic process if we suggested that somehow communities should bid for different branches or different agencies and that somehow we might have some kind of a bidding war to debate about that. The government of the day has to make arrangements about the administration of its policies and programs that make sense in terms of the service needs of the people. One of the decisions that we have made...
Speaker: Order please. Would the Member please conclude his answer.
Hon. Mr. Penikett: One of the decisions that we have made is that in the next three years, 100 positions that are now in Whitehorse or from Whitehorse will be moved to rural communities. It was never contemplated that the communities would compete with each other or get to make a decision about what services we would provide in the communities - neither by this or any other government in the history of this country.
Mr. Phelps: The only bizarre thing here today is the answers provided by the Minister responsible and the stupid policy they have come forward with, which is ridiculous, in terms of what it is costing.
Why have they not discussed the kinds of positions the communities wanted with the Village of Mayo, Dawson City, and the Town of Watson Lake? Why has there been no consultation at all on that aspect? Nobody is asking that the decision rest with the community. Surely, it makes sense that each of these bodies of local government ought to be at least asked as to what kinds of ...
Speaker: Order please. Would the Member please get to his supplementary question.
Mr. Phelps: ... as to what kinds of moves make sense with regard to improvement of services in their area of Yukon.
Hon. Mr. Penikett: I suspect that, if the Member thought about it for even a minute, he would realize that is not a sensible proposition. Is the Member seriously suggesting that, if the village council of Haines Junction decided they did not want the airports and marine branch in or near their community, the government ought to not make that decision?
We receive input from the communities all the time on things like: can we have a counsellor here, can we have a BDO there, can we have a game officer here, can we have a position like that? Occasionally, a community will say, can we have a whole department here? You then go through whether that is really a practical option, and whether they have housing for 100 or 200 people. Those conversations are usually very short.
We have lots of input from the communities about what kind of services they want. The idea that we would negotiate with those communities about how we locate our people is no more sensible than the proposition, which is equally illogical, that somehow those communities should negotiate with us about how they structure their own employees ...
Speaker: Order please. Would the Member please conclude his answer.
Question re: Decentalization
Mrs. Firth: My question is for the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission, and it is with respect to decentralization.
The union also was not consulted, at a time when the relations between the government and union are very strained, bordering on a potential strike situation. One of the concerns of the union is job security of the identified positions in decentralization. We heard the Minister say yesterday and again today how they wrestled with this policy for a considerable number of years and gave it considerable thought. Why, in light of the tenseness of the relationship between the government and the union, did the Minister not show some concern for the workers and consult with them? Why did she not allow the union some meaningful consultation so that they could provide the necessary support to their workers?
Hon. Ms. Joe: The Member has posed some questions and a lot of those have been answered in replies to prior questions in regard to the consultation with the workers. The workers in this government have been assured that any benefits that they have right now will be continued. There will no be loss of benefits in any way. There was consultation. There was the proper consultation that was necessary at that time. I am not exactly sure what the Member is getting at in regard to a loss of anything, whether it be a job or a job and the benefits that go along with it. Certainly the employees knew that this was going to take place and they were given that information.
Mrs. Firth: Obviously they were not given the information because the union is in the media complaining about job security. They are complaining about inadequate consultation. They are saying that the workers were not consulted, except the day before. They are raising some points about the minority issues...
Speaker: Order please. Will the Member please get to the supplementary question.
Mrs. Firth: Yes, I will. I am just trying to point out some of the things that the Minister asked me about that she was not aware of. I would like to ask what kind of consultation was given. The union on one hand was saying that there was not meaningful consultation, and somebody on the other side is going to stand up and say that there was. I would like to know what kind of consultation took place.
Hon. Mr. Penikett: First of all, from the beginning when we established the advisory committee on this process, we went to the Federation of Labour and our union and invited them to name a representative to the consultation process, which they did. Following the receipt of the Smith report, members of this Cabinet met with the union to discuss it with them. Subsequently we received a minority report to the Smith report from the union that expressed their views very clearly on the policy. Some time following that, as we began to define our policy options, there was a further meeting with the elected president of the Yukon Government Employees Union where some discussions were made about these issues. All of us still recognized we were in a difficult situation in that we are currently in bargaining so some of the nature of the discussion had to be bracketed somewhat. Before announcing the policy, the first group briefed was the Yukon government employees. Finally, immediately prior to the announcement in the House all potentially effected employees were briefed individually by their supervisors or deputy ministers.
The employees had ample opportunity to have early input into this policy and there have been continuing conversations, and will be, as we implement it.
Mrs. Firth: In theory, that might sound good to the Minister responsible. The workers still have concerns, and obviously the union still has concerns. They are continuing to raise them publicly.
I would like to ask the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission, who is responsible for the negotiations, since the relationship has taken on a negative tone because of this decentralization move, if she is concerned about the impact this could have on the negotiations that are at an impasse.
Hon. Ms. Joe: I am always concerned about any impact from anything we do may have on the employees. The Member knows that and so do the employees. There are certain things, as she knows, we cannot discuss right now with regard to negotiations. There has been a blackout. I cannot sit here and be specific about anything that is being discussed right now. But she asked if I had a concern; yes I do.
Question re: Decentralization
Mrs. Firth: I guess I would like to ask the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission something a little more specific and give her an opportunity to demonstrate her concern.
The employees were provided with what I will refer to as a comfort letter from the Government Leader - one of the Dear Yukon Government employee letters - to which was attached a question and answer sheet and a letter from the Government Leader and some initiatives of the phases. However, the policy was not made readily available to the employees.
When you compare the policy itself and the comfort letter, under the principles of staffing in policy it made reference to term appointments within the government. It says term appointments are protected only until the end of the term. I would like to ask the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission why that particular clause was not included in the comfort letter. Why did she not see that that was included in the comfort letter from the Government Leader to the employees so that they were aware of all the facts?
Hon. Mr. Penikett: Since the Member is asking questions about a letter that I signed, it should be clear that as the use of the term term employee is understood everywhere, a person is in a job for a certain term. We cannot offer them job security beyond the life of that term without making it something it is not, which is an indeterminate position. Because of a number of funding arrangements we have with the federal government or the temporary nature of certain programs, we cannot commit to job security for term employees beyond the length of their term until Management Board changes the nature of the position.
I want to say to the Member that the most significant issue raised by the employees, their representatives and ourselves was the question of job security. We have made it very clear here that no one would be forced to move or be laid off as a result of this policy. That, I believe, addresses the major concerns of the employees.
Mrs. Firth: It does not address all the concerns of the employees because after this policy paper was made known to the employees it resulted in phone calls to both the union and to us, as Opposition MLAs.
I would like to ask the Minister for the Public Service Commission, and I guess the Minister who answers all the questions, if the Minister will make some approach to have that removed from the principle so the employees are reassured of their job security. Will they just take with term appointments protected only to the end of the term out of their policy? That would provide reassurance to those employees.
Hon. Mr. Penikett: The Member is being a little bit absurd. If she is now proposing that all term employees in this government suddenly be told they have indeterminate positions simply by an announcement in a letter, that was certainly never done by her administration and certainly never done anywhere in the country. Term employees are for a fixed term - one year, two years or three years. For us to say you have job security beyond that is to immediately convert all those term positions into the indeterminate. That is an extremely radical, and I suggest fiscally irresponsible proposal by her. It is not something we can agree to. Term positions are reviewed when they come close to the end of their term. We are not prepared - not prepared - to guarantee people a job beyond the life of their term. What we will do is look at the continuing utility of every term position as it comes due.
Question re: Decentralization
Mr. Phelps: Perhaps the Government Leader should get his act together with senior officials because Mr. Besier had clarified that position with regard to term positions. We were verbally told that when he told the union officials, who were concerned about that very clause, that in the term positions that were renewed, the person who had the term who did not move out of Whitehorse would have their job protected for the duration of the term position that was renewed from time to time. If the position of the Government Leader is that that is a very absurd and radical thing for his Public Service Commissioner to say to the union, now is the time for him to stand up and say so.
Hon. Mr. Penikett: That is entirely a different question. If you are talking about someone who is in a term position and the position is new, of course they have job security. The Member was asking a different question. The question was whether, at the end of a term, we were guaranteeing employment for people. We are not. If a term is renewed then the incumbent has job security, yes.
Mr. Phelps: But with respect, the position was that the term position that did not move outside would be given another job for the length of the term. If the term position that he or she left was renewed - according to Mr. Besier, in speaking to the union - then the person who stayed in Whitehorse would be renewed as well, so that there was a tie and that there was...
Speaker: Order please. Would the Member please get to the supplementary question.
Mr. Phelps: ...there was a completely different shade of meaning placed on the clause in question and I would like to know if the Government Leader is supporting his Public Service Commissioner with regard to that analysis of the clause.
Hon. Mr. Penikett: Well I am still not completely sure of the point the Member is making. Is the Member asking me that in a situation where there is an employee in a position, who chooses not to move and is therefore given another position for the balance of the term that they are now in, that they are automatically guaranteed employment beyond that term, or is he asking if that term in which they are newly in a position is renewed, they will continue, or if the term that is relocated is continued, are they guaranteed the position? Is that the question he is asking me?
Mr. Phelps: I take it was a question and I am always pleased to answer his questions. If a person in Whitehorse is a term position and that person is asked to move to a community, and refuses, and stays in Whitehorse, then that persons job is protected for the duration of the term. If that person is stuck with the job and moves out into the communities, and it was renewed, their new job in Whitehorse would not have been terminated. Just to make this clear, what Mr. Besier said was that if the term position that that person had left because they did not want to leave Whitehorse, then the persons job...
Speaker: Would the Member please get to the supplementary question.
Mr. Phelps: ...would be extended as well. Is that the shade of meaning that the Government Leader is placing on it?
Hon. Mr. Penikett: It seems to me that the scenario outlined by the Member has all sorts of combinations and permutations and possibilities attached to it and I would want to consult with the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commissioner and be briefed by the Public Service Commissioner to see what exactly his understanding on his scenario is. The question is of course fascinating, depending on what happens to the two term positions over a longer period of time and for what duration we are making those kinds of commitments on term positions. I think that the best and most prudent thing I can do, given that I suspect the Member has someone in mind, or perhaps some people in mind who may be affected in some way, is for me to take the question as notice and consult with the Minister of the Public Service Commission because it seems to me that there are, if not an infinite possible number of permutations of that situation, certainly a considerable number. I would like to consult with the Public Service Commissioner.
Question re: Animal mistreatment
Mr. Nordling: The Humane Society has asked the federal Minister of Justice for a public inquiry into the Heynen case, which involved a charge of cruelty to animals. What is the Yukon governments position with regard to their request for a public inquiry? Does the Yukon government support this request?
Hon. Ms. Joe: This is not the first case where a public inquiry has been asked for. Letters have been written to us by all sorts of groups, asking us to intervene in the case that was before the courts. At the time, we could not do that. I think the Member for Porter Creek West understands that.
We have asked the Humane Society to follow through another process, rather than through a politician. If there were a request directed to me to have a full public inquiry directed, I would have to seek direction in regard to that. We have made no decision, one way or the other.
It is a case that gathered a lot of interest in the Yukon, as well as in other parts of the country. We are aware of the situation. There is also a cost of a public inquiry. If there was one, who would pay for it? Right now, I do not think that is a possibility this government will undertake.
Mr. Nordling: At least the Humane Society realizes, as does the Government Leader, that it is federal jurisdiction. The charges were brought under the Criminal Code of Canada. The Yukon government is not being asked to hold a public inquiry. The Humane Society would like to see the Yukon government endorse, or support, their request for a public inquiry from the federal government.
I know the ...
Speaker: Order please. Would the Member please get to the supplementary question.
Mr. Nordling: I know the Government Leader shares the concern of the Humane Society about the mistreatment of animals. Obviously, there was something lacking in the legislation, in this case. Will the Yukon government contact the federal government in support of the Humane Societys request?
Hon. Mr. Penikett: Perhaps it would help the Member to know we were in contact with representatives of that organization and people concerned about that matter. We did assist them in understanding that they had to direct their request to the federal people. If I am correct, I believe a decision has already come down from the federal government, indicating an unwillingness to proceed with such an inquiry.
The Member may, therefore, be asking if we intend to appeal the decision or press it in the future. I am not sure.
Mr. Nordling: My understanding is that there has been no response from the federal government, despite the fact that that thought may have been reported in the newspaper. It is not an appeal that is being asked for. The request would have a lot more weight coming from the Government of the Yukon...
Speaker: Order please. Would the Member please get to the supplementary question.
Mr. Nordling: ...for an event that happened in the territory. The thought was that the federal government would be a lot more interested and maybe a lot more likely to undertake it if the request came from more than just the Humane Society in the territory. I am asking if the Yukon government will support their request in the near future before a response is received from the federal government.
Hon. Mr. Penikett: I will just simply say that I will, following this question, take up his representation with the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Renewable Resources. There may have been some steps taken already, but I will check that.
Speaker: The time for Question Period has now lapsed. We will now proceed to Orders of the Day.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
NOTICE OF BUSINESS
Mr. Phillips: Pursuant to the provision of Standing Order 14.1(1), I would request the unanimous consent of the House to call the following motions: Item 8, Motion No. 12; Item 3, Motion No. 6; Item 4, Motion No. 7; Item 2, Motion No. 5; under motions other than government motions when the business is called Wednesday, October 31, 1990.
It was also our intention to call the Motion for Production of Papers No. 1, Item 1, prior to dealing with motions other than government motions.
Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Unanimous consent granted
Bill No. 16: Second Reading
Clerk: Second reading, Bill No. 16, standing in the name of the hon. Mr. McDonald.
Hon. Mr. McDonald: I move that Bill No. 16, entitled First Appropriation Act, 1991-92, be now read a second time.
Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. Minister of Finance that Bill No. 16, entitled First Appropriation Act, 1991-92, be now read a second time.
Hon. Mr. McDonald: I am pleased to introduce today my third capital and operation and maintenance budget.
As you and all people of the Yukon are aware, we are entering a period of fiscal restraint that will make it very difficult to strike a balance between the needs of our citizens for more services and responsible financial management. This budget addresses that balance by refocussing resources. It recognizes the governments priority initiatives: investing in healthy communities, building a sustainable economy, ensuring good government and completing Indian land claims. It emphasizes our continued commitment to sustainable development and healthy communities by strengthening our existing industries and encouraging economic diversification. It meets the challenges that face us as we grapple with growing needs, constraints on our financial resources and the high tax burden. The budget represents a realistic plan of action that will ensure that the social, environmental and economic concerns of Yukon are met in the coming fiscal year.
The economic environment in which we operate sets the tone for our budgetary planning. It delineates the financial resources available to the government and the needs of the population. I would like to take a few moments to present you with an overview of the economic situation we currently face.
The Canadian economy is expected to experience very slow growth in 1990. The Conference Board of Canada has stated that the national economy is already in recession and that real growth will not be realized until the second quarter of 1991. This economic outlook will lead to annual growth rates for constant dollar Canadian gross domestic product will be only 0.7 percent for 1990 and 0.4 percent for the next year. Consumer spending and the housing sector are expected to be even softer. Business investment in energy-related activities is expected to be one of the few bright spots in the national economy over the coming months.
The overall national rate of inflation is forecast to be 4.4 percent this year, rising to 6.1 percent in 1991. Recent international events will put upward pressure on the rate of inflation as world oil price increases are passed on to Canadian consumers. The implementation of the federal goods and services tax will also contribute to higher inflation. Countering these influences to some extent will be a downward effect on prices resulting from the economic slowdown that we expect will continue over the next year.
Interest rates will likely moderate somewhat, but are anticipated to remain relatively high. The Bank of Canadas continued concern about inflationary pressures will influence the degree of easing in the interest rates during the coming months. However, the prime lending rate should continue its current slight downward trend over the course of the next year. It is expected to average 12.8 percent in 1990-91, compared to this years forecast of 14.1 percent.
On the labour front, the number of employed Canadians is projected to increase by a modest 0.9 percent in 1990, and then decline by 0.2 percent next year. As a result of this, the national unemployment rate, which was 8.4 percent in September, will average 7.9 percent this year and 8.9 percent in 1991.
The Yukons economic outlook for 1990 is one of continued, but slow, growth. As of June of this year, the population count stood at 29,157 people, essentially unchanged from the figure of a year earlier. The number of employed people in the Yukon was 13,138 in June, and the unemployment rate stood at 9 percent at that time.
The current year represents a period of transition, as the economic impacts of several major federal fiscal restraint measures pass through the local economy. The growth rate of the formula financing grant was cut back with the result that additional restraints on government expenditure increases were initiated. The elimination of federal mining exploration incentive programs was particularly severe and contributed to a marked dampening of exploration activity this year. Coupled with a relatively moderate tourist season and the impact of the announced shutdown of the Ketza River Mine, these are contributing to a fairly slow rate of growth in the economy.
Still, economic activity in the Yukon continues at a healthy level this year. Employment is averaging well over 12,000, and the average annual unemployment rate at 11 percent is at its lowest in nearly a decade. This is a very positive development and, while there is still far to go in eliminating structural unemployment in the Yukon, it demonstrates that our economic development policies and initiatives are having their intended effect: a sound economy and jobs for Yukon people.
Total investment expenditures are up over 11 percent this year on the strength of government investment. This will be a major contribution to the territorys economic performance for the year.
Our rate of inflation, which has been below the national average for the past three years, is expected to be below the Canadian average again this year. As of September, the rate of increase in the consumer price index for Whitehorse was four percent for the first nine months, compared to the national rate of 4.7 percent. Once again, I believe all Members will find this to be encouraging news and proof that our previous expenditure initiatives have not had an inflationary impact on the local economy.
However, in 1991, our rate of inflation is expected to match the national average. With the additional inflationary pressures on Yukon, resulting from higher oil prices and the introduction of the federal tax on goods and services, the Consumer Price Index for Whitehorse is not expected to maintain a rate of increase below that of the rest of Canada. Because of the nature of our economy, these two factors have a much greater impact on us than they do on southern economies. It is for this and other reasons that we have opposed the goods and services tax the federal government is imposing across the country from the beginning, with admittedly little success.
Despite this, our economy in 1991 is expected to experience steady growth. While the national economic picture is not very bright, there are a number of encouraging local developments for the coming year that will maintain a generally healthy Yukon economy.
The go-ahead for several major projects in 1991 will provide a welcome stimulus to our economy and keep us on the course of economic expansion. One is the production startup of the Mt. Hundere mine near Watson Lake. Not only will this operation provide a significant economic boost for the territorys economy, but its impact will be particularly positive for the Watson Lake area. The expansion of the Curragh Resources operation in Faro will provide increased job opportunities and assure continued economic prosperity for the region. Plans to reopen the United Keno Hill Mine at Elsa are also encouraging. While it would be smaller than the previous operation, it would still represent a major increase in mining activity in that area.
Construction activity on the new federal building is expected to continue, and ground-breaking for a hotel convention centre should take place next year. Also, there will be the commencement of construction on the Mayo-to-Dawson transmission line by the Yukon Energy Corporation. These projects will help boost construction activity in 1991 and, combined with other private investment and government expenditures throughout the territory, will significantly contribute to a healthy construction industry for 1991-92.
The budget I am introducing today reflects our continuing policy of responsible financial management. It does so by outlining a fiscal plan that limits expenditures to our revenue capacity. We are determined to live within our means.
While still addressing some of the increasing needs and concerns of our citizens, we have had to accommodate the fiscal restraint the federal government has decided to impose upon the people of the Yukon. The magnitude of the cutbacks to the formula financing grant could reach $10.6 million in 1991-92. Over the five years of the arrangement, it represents a cutback of about $50 million which, when put on a national scale, would reflect a $45 billion reduction. We all know, of course, that cutbacks of this magnitude have not been initiated at the national level. This impact is less than we originally calculated, and it is the result of further negotiations and updated information.
In spite of the severity of these cutbacks, we have been able to present a responsible budget that incorporates the elements of prudent financial management. The combined capital and operation and maintenance expenditures for 1991-92 are $355.7 million. This level of expenditures represents a 3.9 percent decrease from the forecast estimates for the 1990-91 year.
Supplementary estimates for the current fiscal year were tabled earlier today. These supplementary estimates project a total capital expenditure of $116.3 million, and operation and maintenance expenditures of $253.8 million for the 1990-91 year. With revenues of $361.7 million, these expenditures will result in an annual projected deficit of $9.6 million for 1990-91 and an accumulated surplus of $44.4 million as at March 31, 1991. This deficit is primarily the result of the revote of prior year lapsed capital expenditures.
The budget I am presenting today reflects a closing accumulated surplus of $60.2 million at March 31, 1992, or a 1991-92 surplus of $15.8 million.
By year-end, however, negotiations for the RCMP agreement and public sector collective bargaining should be completed. Along with normal supplementary requirements throughout the year, these negotiations are expected to reduce the 1991-92 current year surplus and result in a balanced budget.
I am pleased to announce there will be no new tax increases during the coming fiscal year. The implementation of the proposed goods and services tax by the federal government will be burden enough for the residents of the Yukon. To ask our citizens to bear even greater taxes would be unacceptable.
Budgetary revenues for the coming fiscal year are expected to total $372.5 million. This represents an increase of three percent over the current years revenues.
Revenues from territorial sources are forecast to continue to increase in 1991-92. Continued economic growth will be reflected in higher revenues for the Yukon government that will total approximately $61.5 million next year. This increase is a result of increased volumes of taxable income and spending. As Members will be aware, we are penalized by the federal government under the new formula for this volume increase, and our grant will be reduced by approximately 133 percent of the volume increase. Personal income tax revenues are expected to increase to $28.1 million, some 5.1 percent over the 1990-91 forecast level. Corporate income tax revenues should increase by nearly six percent and reach a level of $3.8 million. Our confidence in the continued growth of the Yukon economy is reflected in these revenue projections.
Investment income is expected to decline in consequence of generally lower interest rates over the coming year. It is anticipated that our investment earnings will decline to $4.5 million in 1991-92, down somewhat from the forecast amount of $5.2 million for this current year.
The grant from the federal government is expected to grow by four percent over the current years level. This rate of growth is below the rate of inflation and constrains our ability to maintain services, much less fund additional program expenditures. It is for this reason we have had to restrain our expenditure growth and seek the reallocation of monies to fund the new initiatives we are undertaking.
In preparing this budget, we have had to direct our resources toward the governments principle priorities. We have had to consider the undue burden that would be placed on our citizens if we were to increase taxes in order to fund additional programs. We have had to keep in mind our commitment to sound financial management and the ensuing necessity to live with a balanced budget. Despite these fiscal restraints, because we have been able to achieve a delivery of services in a more efficient and effective manner, we have been able to reallocate resources to address new needs.
We have a firm resolve to balance the social, economic and environmental concerns of the people of the Yukon. In addressing these concerns, we have identified a number of initiatives that represent priorities for our citizens. These priorities: investing in healthy communities, building a sustainable economy, ensuring good government and completing Indian land claims, have all received attention in this budget.
I would like to now review for you some of the more important expenditure initiatives contained in the budget I have tabled today.
Several new initiatives in the field of health care will be undertaken in the coming year.
The new health act will provide a comprehensive framework for innovative approaches for the problems and challenges facing our health care system. Within the context of the new health act, this government is committed to devoting more funds to the area of health promotion. To support this commitment, the Department of Health and Human Resources will contribute $150,000 for the establishment of a health investment fund that will provide community groups, agencies and organizations access to funding for special community health projects. Investing in the health and well-being of Yukon people now will lead to reduced treatment costs in the long term.
One hundred and sixty thousand dollars for operational funding for the new mammography unit at the Whitehorse General Hospital has been identified in this budget. These funds will be used to cover the anticipated ongoing expenses of maintaining this service at a level to meet the needs of the Yukon.
We will be contributing $69,000 to the Skookum Jim AIDS awareness program in 1991-92. A joint funding arrangement for this program has been reached with the federal government. This arrangement will extend to the end of the 1992-93 fiscal year and it provides for a total contribution of $178,000 from the Yukon government. We believe this program is crucial to arresting the spread of AIDS.
The construction of the new long-term care and rehabilitation centre is anticipated to commence in the coming year. Through the Yukon Housing Corporation, $5.2 million will be provided for its construction in 1991-92. An extended care facility in the Yukon will help us better tend to the long-term health care needs of territorial residents.
These initiatives, along with the continued funding for the core health programs contained in the budget, mark the beginning of our long-term plan to improve the state of health and health care in the Yukon.
The implementation of the new Education Act will continue in the new fiscal year. The four-year consultation process undertaken to develop the act and subsequent consultation on regulations, have ensured that all major facets in bringing about school-based management and community control of the education system have been considered. To provide for continued implementation of the education act, the Department of Education will budget $438,000 in 1991-92. An additional $55,000 will be set aside for the operation of the Education Appeal Tribunal.
Ongoing operations of the department have not been ignored in the budget. This is evidenced by the fact the departments operation and maintenance budget will increase by almost $3.5 million, or 6.4 percent, in 1991-92, over the previous main estimates. These monies will be used to fund the already-mentioned education reform package, and will also pay for new teachers and enhance programming. It is apparent the existing justice system is not always appropriate for serving its intended purposes for our native citizens. In recognition of this, in the coming fiscal year the Department of Justice will be introducing two initiatives directed at developing and implementing aboriginal justice programs. The Department of Justice will provide $55,000 for the establishment of the position of aboriginal justice coordinator within the corrections and law enforcement branch.
This position will be responsible for developing, implementing and coordinating programs directed toward aboriginal justice and Yukon First Nation participation within the justice system.
The department will allocate further funding in the amount of $93,000 to undertake the development and implementation of an aboriginal justice pilot project with several of the Yukon First Nations.
Together, these two programs represent the initial groundwork necessary for the establishment of a complete aboriginal justice program for Yukon native peoples.
Aboriginal language services will be greatly expanded in 1991-92. Several measures that will support the preservation, development and enhancement of the Yukons eight aboriginal languages are planned. A new territorial agent and interpreter service will be initiated with interpreter positions to be located in eight rural communities and in Whitehorse. An oral history and language preservation program will be implemented along with a community initiatives program. These new programs will help preserve and promote the use of Yukon aboriginal languages, a goal we consider to be very important.
These programs will require $1,075,000 in 1991-92. The oral history and language preservation program will be given $200,000. The community initiatives program will be given $100,000 from the Executive Council Office. The new territorial agent and interpreter service will require a total of $775,000, with $475,000 coming from the Executive Council Office and $300,000 in capital monies from the Department of Government Services for required capital facilities.
The Department of Justice will allocate $80,000 for the purposes of initiating an electronic home monitoring system for non-violent offenders next year. This pilot project will increase the Solicitor Generals flexibility in dealing with such offenders, and expand the courts options for sentencing these individuals.
One of this governments goals is to be a model employer. We are determined to employ a workforce that is competent, committed, productive and representative. The Public Service Commission has developed and is implementing an employment equity program that will enable us to establish a workforce that is more representative of the Yukons population. The government will continue to provide training opportunities for aboriginal people, assist departments in making job accommodations for workers with disabilities, and reducing employment barriers to women. Achieving a fully representative workforce is a long-term goal, but one we will be vigorously pursuing in all departments in the coming year. The Public Service Commission will expend $587,000 on its employment equity program in 1991-92.
In the areas of sport, arts and recreation, we will be introducing several initiatives that will promote their growth and development in the years to come.
With our capital city hosting the 1992 Arctic Winter Games, we will be joining other governments and organizations in supporting this event. Over 1,200 athletes and artists, from as far away as Greenland and the Soviet Union, are expected to celebrate northern sport and culture in Whitehorse in March 1992. In consequence of this event, the Department of Community and Transportation Services will contribute an additional $150,000 toward the cost of hosting the games.
Funds will also be provided for the creation of a First Nations recreation consultant, who will work with native organizations and individuals to support the growth and development of recreation, culture and traditional activities within the Yukons native community.
We will be introducing a new sports, arts and recreation funding regime, which will result in greater cooperation among groups and greater efficiency in the administration of sport, arts and recreation funds. This new regime will be implemented in cooperation with the Yukon Lottery Commission, the Yukon Recreation Advisory Committee and sport, arts and recreation groups throughout the territory. While this particular initiative will not result in any additional expenditures by our government, it is representative of our policy of introducing programs and actions that will result in a more responsive and more efficient government.
Our economic development policy is to implement initiatives that will provide long-term and sustainable development of and for the Yukon.
I will address a number of the initiatives that are planned for the coming year, but first I would like to take a moment to speak about two major ones currently under negotiation: the economic development agreement and the Northern Accord on Oil and Gas. Successful completion of these negotiations will better enable us to create a strong, vibrant and stable economy for the Yukon.
We are attempting to negotiate a new five-year economic development agreement. We have been encouraging the return to a long-term agreement. It will provide us with a significant opportunity to realize our plans for developing our economy in a diversified and sustainable manner. It will also enable us to better plan for and adapt to short-term fluctuations within our economic base, an ill to which our small economy is more susceptible than are the larger southern economies.
A Northern Accord will establish the framework under which we will be able to directly manage the territorys hydrocarbon resources, including those resources lying offshore in the Beaufort Sea. It will be an important precursor to our future control and management of all the Yukons non-renewable resources. It will take us a very large step forward in our constitutional development.
With the 1992 Alaska Highway anniversary approaching, the Department of Tourism will be targeting resources toward several major initiatives to prepare for the expected influx of visitors to the Yukon that will coincide with the anniversary celebrations.
In 1991-92 a total of $1.3 million will be provided for the museum program. This is double the sum spent in the current year. These funds will better allow us to implement the new Yukon museums policy, and to enable our museums to more effectively contribute to the 1992 anniversary.
The construction of the Yukon visitor reception centre is expected to be completed in time for the 1992 celebrations. It will be a showcase facility for our visiting tourists to use and enjoy as an interpretive information source on and about the Yukon. A total of $2.2 million will be expended in the coming year for the construction of the centre.
Our transportation and communications systems are the underlying strength of our economy. In order to maintain these systems and to ensure that they continue to improve, the Department of Community and Transportation Services will devote $47.4 million toward their upgrading and maintenance.
Phase 3 of the VHF mobile radio system replacement program will be undertaken in 1991/92, covering the Campbell Highway east. As part of our announced decentralization initiatives, operation and responsibility for the VHF mobile radio system will be transferred to Carcross next year.
The aviation and transportation system will undergo continued improvements with the upgrading of the Haines Junction and Carmacks airports. Responsibility for Arctic B and C airports was transferred from the federal government in last fiscal year and the upgrading of these two airports was a condition of this transfer. We will be integrating the operational responsibility of this transportation system into our decentralization process and we will be moving the relevant positions to Haines Junction and Mayo in the near future.
A total of $1.4 million will be spent on the upgrading of these two airports, and $2 million will be allocated for the operational services for Arctic B and C airports in the 1991/92 fiscal year.
The highway system will also see a number of improvements with the upgrading of the Campbell Highway and continued work on the Klondike Highway. The Pelly River bridge at Faro will also be upgraded to ensure the safe handling of ore trucks from the Curragh Resources mine. In total, $42.5 million will be spent on roads, highways and bridges in 1991/92, including the Alaska Highway and the Haines Road. Responsibility for the capital upkeep for territorial roads was transferred from the federal government this year. This transfer of responsibility will allow us to more effectively plan for a long-term transportation system and economic development. It is yet another sign of the continuing political evolution that the territory is undergoing.
The business development fund and the business incentive program will continue to provide effective support for Yukon businesses and help maintain our solid economic base while encouraging economic diversification. The Department of Economic Development: Mines and Small Business will provide a total of $3.3 million for the Business Development Fund and the Department of Government Services will allocate $450,000 towards the Business Incentive Program in 1991-92. This incentive program is designed to encourage the use of Yukon materials and manufactured goods and promote employment opportunities for Yukon residents resulting from government activities.
A further $3.6 million has been dedicated to community economic and social development through the community development fund. These programs are critical to our goal of promoting economic diversification in the Yukon.
Our government has consistently been supportive of, and promoted, alternative energy programs. With the recent volatility in oil prices, these programs obviously remain important and we intend to continue to give them our full support. This will help alleviate the financial hardship which will be brought to bear upon Yukoners as a result of higher oil prices and contribute to our efforts to reduce energy consumption for future economic and environmental security. The Department of Economic Development: Mines and Small Business will allocate $1 million toward their saving energy action loan program and the Yukon energy alternatives program in the coming year.
In 1991-92, we will be expending an additional $110,000 for the development of a planned preventive maintenance program, through the Department of Government Services. Implementation of a preventive maintenance program will reduce building maintenance problems, control costs over the long term and provide for more efficient use of our resources - an essential in these times of restraint.
Last year I spoke of this governments action plan for environmental protection and its commitment to fund such initiatives. In 1991-92, we are budgeting a further $255,000 for such programs. These resources will allow the Department of Government Services to fund a $40,000 paper recycling project in Whitehorse and a further $20,000 to carry out our program of reducing paper usage within government by encouraging double-sided copying. The Department of Community and Transportation Services will be contributing an additional $95,000 toward municipal water and sewer grants and $100,000 for cleanup of abandoned metals.
Total funding for various water, sewer and solid waste projects in Yukon communities will amount to $3 million in 1991-92. This is in addition to that which the communities choose to devote to such projects from their municipal block funding grants.
With the introduction of our environment act next year, that legislation and the actions of which I have just spoken will provide the basis for an effective plan of action for safeguarding the environment of the Yukon to the benefit of those living here now and in the future.
As part of our commitment to protecting the environment and to maintaining our national heritage, a total of $70,000 will be allocated to the preparation and study of park management in two areas of the territory in 1991-92. Park management plans will be prepared and consultations with the public and Yukon First Nations will take place for the proposed Carcross dunes territorial park and Kusawa Lake park.
A total of $612,000 is being allocated to Renewable Resources for environmental protection. This includes $330,000 to complete work on the new environment act and to undertake public consultation and information programs on environmental protection. In addition, $70,000 has been provided by the Department of Justice for the drafting of this important new legislation.
The importance of decentralizing government operations has, for some time, been recognized by the people of the Yukon. Decentralization was a recurring theme of the Yukon 2000 discussion, and, over the past several years, our government has taken some steps to begin the process. We are all aware that economic development is unevenly distributed across the rural communities. Increasing the governments presence in the communities through the decentralization process will strengthen the economies of those communities. Decentralization will mean additional incomes, spending and economic activity in the communities and will improve the delivery of government programs and services to rural residents. We recognize these benefits and are now ready to take significant steps to realize them.
This year, we will begin implementing a multi-year plan to decentralize a minimum of 100 public service positions over the next three years. By the end of the first full year, 1991-92, we plan to have established 39 additional positions in the communities. Six government departments will be involved in the initial stages: Community and Transportation Services, Economic Development: Mines & Small Business, Education, Government Services, Renewable Resources and the Executive Council Office. We have consulted with the individuals involved and expect to have a smooth transition to community-based operations. This carefully planned, phased-in approach will require the additional expenditure of $479,000 in 1991-92 including one-time capital costs of $225,000.
We believe that the decentralization of government operations and positions is a sound investment in our communities and their residents.
As negotiations continue for band final agreements, we are committed to support the land claims process and fulfill our responsibilities and obligations for the implementation of the settlement agreements. In addition to this years portion of the previously announced $6.7 million commitment toward the land claims settlement activities, allocations are incorporated in the budget for land claims initiatives for which we are currently negotiating funding from Canada. Upon receipt of appropriate commitments from the federal government in this regard, we will be providing a total of $2.6 million in the coming year.
The Department of Education will allocate $1.1 million toward the land claims training trust fund. A further $1.3 million will be provided through the Department of Renewable Resources. These funds are for a number of initiatives. A total of $500,000 is being set aside to compensate outfitters for losses resulting from loss of access to certain lands. An additional $250,000 will represent our contribution toward the Yukon fish and wildlife enhancement trust for the coming year. The department will also allocate $244,000 for band-by-band negotiations, and $200,000 for preimplementation of the various boards and renewable resource councils. A further $150,000 has also been set aside for implementation support.
Other funds will also be provided by the Departments of Justice and Health and Human Resources in order to allow them to carry out their roles in the negotiation and implementation processes.
I need not remind anyone of the importance of the settlement of the land claims to all citizens of the Yukon. The successful completion of these negotiations, and final implementation of our native land claims, will be crucial in establishing a strong framework for continued economic and social benefits for Yukon people.
Investing in healthy communities, building a sustainable economy, ensuring good government, and completing Indian land claims are the principle priorities of this government. Our investment in them will create a Yukon of which we can all be proud. The budget I have tabled today is a sound investment in the achievement of these priorities.
We have been able to redirect resources to achieve our goals. We have maintained our commitment to sound financial management. We have preserved our financial reserve for possible future needs. We have not initiated any tax measures that would unduly burden our citizens.
I am sure that all Members of this Legislature will wish to support these endeavors. I present this budget to the favourable attention of all hon. Members.
Mr. Phelps: I move that we adjourn debate.
Speaker: It has been moved by the Leader of the Official Opposition that debate be now adjourned.
Motion agreed to
Hon. Mr. McDonald: I move that the House do now adjourn.
Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. Government House Leader that the House do now adjourn.
Motion agreed to
Speaker: This House now stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.
The House adjourned at 2:57 p.m.
The following Sessional Paper was tabled October 30, 1990:
91/92 Estimated Funding by Community by Project and 91/92 Estimated Funding by Community (McDonald)